From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Piotr Oledzki <ole@ans.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: core: Lock address during client device instantiation
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 13:14:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZryRqVexisiS-SGp@shikoro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3b1964fa-56fd-464f-93d3-98d46c70b872@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1018 bytes --]
Hi Heiner,
thanks for tackling this!
> +static int i2c_lock_addr(struct i2c_adapter *adap, unsigned short addr,
> + unsigned short flags)
What about just using 'struct i2c_client *client' here as an argument.
It has all we need and it currently seems unlikely that we need to call
it from somewhere else where we need this seperation.
> + if (!(flags & I2C_CLIENT_TEN) && !(flags & I2C_CLIENT_SLAVE) &&
From a pedantic point of view, I don't see a reason for not handling
those two cases above. I hate to be pedantic because 10-bit mode is
practically unused (and I am tempted to remove support for it once in a
while because it makes other solutions clumsy). And the other one is
super unlikely to happen because the backends do not autoload. However,
it is theoretically possible if someone loads a devicetree overlay and
initiates via sysfs at the same time. I liked the solution with the
bitfield and atomic access, but maybe a linked list is better?
Happy hacking,
Wolfram
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-14 11:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-13 21:39 [PATCH] i2c: core: Lock address during client device instantiation Heiner Kallweit
2024-08-14 11:14 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2024-08-14 20:07 ` Heiner Kallweit
2024-08-14 20:25 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-08-16 6:17 ` Heiner Kallweit
2024-08-16 9:23 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-08-16 11:33 ` Heiner Kallweit
2024-08-16 14:49 ` Wolfram Sang
2024-08-15 11:29 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZryRqVexisiS-SGp@shikoro \
--to=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ole@ans.pl \
--cc=wsa@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.